Isaac Asimov's Foundation Series psychohistory was brought up in a recent thread. This ties in to my own work to develop a physical science of society, history dynamics. If psychohistory really existed, then psychohistory + thermodynamics-derived history dynamics should provide a fairly complete macroscopic social science.

A major challenge as I see it is trying to create a sustainable society despite the rise and fall of individual nations. War and the destruction of liberal society often results during such struggles and transitions. It is as if we boating on a river, and have to navigate the rocks and rapids as we travel through time. Call such "medium-term" sustainability considerations.

What is the relation between psychohistory/history dynamics and technocracy? What is the relation between the two movements? I would value your opinions. Also, if anyone is interested in helping out with the development or advocacy of psychohistory/history dynamics, please let me know. Anyone is welcome, but I would love to see some psychologists involved as well.

For some background, see
Fast Entropy / History Dynamics site.


Mark

I see Psychohistory and Technocracy as tools and not as an end in themselves. EOS is a movement, but EOS is influenced from more areas than simply one or two ideas. Thence, I see no reason why not to study Psychohistory and see whether it has a place in our movement or not.

Sounds like historical materialism to me...

The problem with historical materialism is Marxist Dialectics, which is basically an idealistic method of analysing opposites which is connected to the dialectics of Hegel. It is a pre-scientific method built on dualism.

Asimov's psychohistory definitely involves a form of dialectics, such as when economic and religious powers face off against each other, and "big" and "small" systems face off against each other (in the Foundation series). His psychohistory is not entirely driven by economic production, but much by the psychological response of entire populations along with balances of political power. Despite Asimov being a physical scientist, in his psychohistory, energy resources are unlimited. The choice was between nuclear versus coal and oil, and there was apparently enough of either to last forever in his Foundation and Foundation and Empire books. However, Asimov's field was chemistry, not geology, if I recall correctly.

Fast Entropy-History Dynamics (FE-HD) is not historical materialism, it's pure materialism. Individuals have substantial freedom of motion, but very large groups are much more limited in their freedom of motion. Humans and society are manifestations of large-scale cosmological processes and statistical mechanics. Humanity has a role in the cosmos: to help it achieve its thermodynamic potential as quickly as possible. The laws of physics are a constraint upon human activity.

FE-HD recognises that evolution and other circumstances have produced humans as a species with psychological needs and mental mechanisms that are very real. Such psychological (and neuroscience considerations) are also important constraints upon upon human activity. Scientifically valid social policies should take both physical and psychological considerations into account. However, the psychological consideration are lesser constraints to the physical ones, since the human brain is composed of physical material. Computers work the same way: the software is the most important thing for users, UNLESS the power or batteries goes out; a lack of electrical power renders the software irrelevant.

Under FE-HD, fast entropy drives the emergence of life and evolution and drives the formation of intelligence; society and civilisation can be viewed as more sophisticated forms of intelligence. Under FE-HD, evolution, intelligence and civilisation are problem-solving mechanisms that enable the universe achieve its thermodynamic potential more quickly.

Since people DO have their own feelings (psychology), that does not mean we have to completely like the operation of fast entropy. We can build physical and social structures that partially impede the achievement of thermodynamic potential. We can have policies that slow down the consumption of limited resources such as coal and oil. We can preserve scarce forests. We can put limits on industry and protect workers' rights. In engineering terms, this is similar to putting a resistor in a direct current circuit, that slows down the consumption of a battery's potential (Ohm's Law V = IR -> I = V/R ).

However, the drive and mechanics of fast entropy still need to be taken into account. People might not like gravity, either, but it's force must be taken into account when building a bridge or the bridge will collapse. Neglect fast entropy, and social structures will often collapse, so yes, this is materialism (at least according to one definition). Neglect psychology at the same peril. Both are required.

Enrique Lescure wrote:


I need to correct you here, although I don't blame you, it's a very esoteric subject. Historical materialism is actually not related to dialectical materialism, although they may appear similar to the uninitiated and they were indeed abused heavily and incorrectly interchanged in Joseph Stalin's "Dialectical and Historical Materialism" which is a load of bullshit from the biggest psychopath to ever walk the Earth.

I am actually extremely critical of dialectical materialism however and see it largely superseded by other methods (such as systems theory). It's trying to reach the right direction, so I'm sympathetic, but the scientist in me finds it quaint. I certainly abhor any use of it beyond societal/sociological analysis.

You're right to say dialectical materialism is connected to dialectics of Hegel, and it borrows much of the same philosophical language (such as contradiction, thesis, and antithesis) but whereas Hegel's philosophy is idealistic, Marx and Engels' is materialistic.

I'd argue it has more in common with a cybernetic approach to modelling the material reality of complex systems than the traditional scientific method. It is certainly not based on dualism, I think you might be misunderstanding it because of the concept of contradictions, or thesis and antithesis, leading you to recognise dualities, and think dualism? The method (DM) can actually deal with multiple 'forces' or contradictions. Although, again, the concept of contradiction is often misused.

I would on the whole not consider DM a science, it's kind of half there, but lacks the rigorous testability a science requires. I have seen people who claim to use a DM approach/analysis produce really useful analysis, exclusively in societal and political fields. I think their method is actually just thoughtful, educated, historical/sociological analysis based on the best of information available of extremely complex social systems.

In defence of historical materialism, as used by for example Marx in his critique of capitalism in Capital, the core idea that history is based on the objective material conditions largely determining the economic and political structure was pioneering in his time, when other political economists thought the world was determined by ideas.

I think this is an interesting thread of discussion, and I find these ideas of fast entropy very similar to the thoughts I've had inspired by the lacking philosophies of dialectical materialism, the good but limited method of historical materialism, and the ground-breaking concepts of thermoeconomics and systems theory.

Regards,

Dan.

My fault. But the two are often interchanged quite frivolously by those who often are employing these terms. My problem with DM is that it sees development as a product of antagonisms, and doesn't take into account more evolutionary models of development (such as technological progress and its implication for the social process). Antagonisms do exist, but they're not the sole engine of development.